This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Swans.rock (talk | contribs) at 00:38, 26 June 2008 (→Main page?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ERRORS
• WP:MP/E

National variations of the English language have been extensively discussed previously: Misplaced Pages does not prefer any national variety of English. While Misplaced Pages strives to use language common to all English varieties, some spelling, grammar, or terminology may differ or be absent in a reader's preferred variety. Refer to the relevant style guide on national varieties of English and see a comparison of American and British English.

To report an error in content currently or imminently on the Main Page, use the appropriate section below.

• Main Page queue

In the news

candidates

discussion

admin instructions

Did you know

nominations

discussion

queue

BotErrors

Protected pages

Commons media protection

Associated

• Error reports
• General discussion
• FAQ
• Help
• CSS
• Sandbox
  • CSS
• History
• Alternatives
• April Fools'

• It is currently 13:34 UTC.
• Purge the Main Page
• Purge this page

• Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
• Offer a correction if possible.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 13:34 on 14 January 2025) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
• No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
• Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
• Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Today's FA

Tomorrow's FA

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Errors with "In the news"

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

• ... that of the 156 Conestoga wagons (pictured) brought to the Braddock Expedition of the French and Indian War, only one remained intact by the campaign's end? That's not what the article seems to say. "Only a few wagons of the Braddock Expedition ultimately remained, and they were returned to their original owners when the vehicles arrived at Wills Creek in Pennsylvania." and "In total, 156 wagons are thought to have been employed for the disastrous Braddock Expedition, the only wagon to survive intact being that of William Douglas." meaning that only one wagon survives until now, but multiple survived the expedition (or else they couldn't have been sent back to their owners surely). Fram (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Also, surely it should be 'employed by' or 'taken on' the expedition 'during' the war, not 'brought to ... of'. Modest Genius 13:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  A rewording does not seem to be in the scope of Errors. The definition of "brought" is "take or go with (someone or something) to a place." which seems close enough to "taken on". SL93 (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Pinging nominator PrimalMustelid. SL93 (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not what the source says. It says (I quote):

The number of Pennsylvania wagons that arrived back at Wills Creek has not been definitely established. For the service of their wagons, 30 owners received payment for a period greater than the 51 days, but of these, only 10 were paid for services beyond what appears to be July 20. Only the wagon of William Douglas, out of 146 wagons involved, seems to have survived the campaign intact. Inasmuch as the other owners were reimbursed for loss of their wagons, it is likely that those few that arrived back at Fort Cumberland were so badly damaged as to render them unserviceable, and therefore not worth driving back to eastern Pennsylvania.

In short, the writer is talking about the situation at the end of the campaign, where only the one appears to have survived the campaign in serviceable condition, the others being too damaged to be worth retaining.

Please note that I am about to log off so will not be able to respond further today. Gatoclass (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

So am I expected to emend the hook and/or article, or has the situation resolved itself? PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Can someone please pull or correct this? What's the purpose of this page? Fram (talk) 09:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Per Gatoclass, my read is that several wagons were in some form you could vaguely still call a wagon, not completely smashed to bits but not usable, a la a totaled car. Only one was actually intact. That could very much be clarified in the article, but as long as there's not a hook–source disagreement, I'm not currently seeing a need to pull. If another admin disagrees, they're welcome to hit the button. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

There is no indication that the wagons which were returned to their owners where "not usable". Only of the "those few that arrived back at Fort Cumberland were so badly damaged as to render them unserviceable" do we know that they were so badly damaged, but it seems (from Gatoclass' pst) that there were only 10 kept in use after 10 July anyway, the others either already damaged or sent back to their owners. There is no indication, in the source nor in the article, that all 155 other wagons were not "intact". Fram (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not following your logic at all. The source plainly states that Only the wagon of William Douglas, out of 146 wagons involved, seems to have survived the campaign intact. If it's the only one to have survived intact, then none of the others made it back to their owners, otherwise they too would have "survived intact". Gatoclass (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. You state "none of the others made it back to their owners", but the article states "Only a few wagons of the Braddock Expedition ultimately remained, and they were returned to their original owners when the vehicles arrived at Wills Creek in Pennsylvania. " Like I already said in my opening post. It can't both be true at the same time that "none of the others made it back to their owners" and "a few wagons were returned to their original owners". Fram (talk) 12:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the article contradicts itself by misstating the source. But that can be fixed simply by editing the article to comply with the source, there is no need to pull the hook. Gatoclass (talk) 12:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

If only someone had pointed out yesterday that the hook and the article contradict each other, e.g. by stating about the hook "That's not what the article seems to say." with the relevant quotes. What an utter waste of time is this page and some of its responders yet again. Fram (talk) 13:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

If only someone had the ability to improve an article... the fifth bullet point at the top of this page might prove instructive. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Fram, with respect, the point of your original post was hardly crystal clear. It appeared to me that you were claiming only one of the wagons is still extant today. If you'd simply said the article contradicts itself, there would have been no room for misinterpretation.

Regardless, I have now edited the article to conform with the sources. Gatoclass (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Next DYK

Next-but-one DYK

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

Tomorrow's OTD

Day-after-tomorrow's OTD

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Next Monday's FL

(January 20)

"45 men have served in 46 presidencies". That's true now, but that text will still display on inauguration day. The extra presidency refers to President Grover Cleveland, but Trump is about to enter the same status. So the number of men won't change, but the number of presidencies will. Despite Martin Luther King day, 46 will be wrong after noon Eastern Time or 1700 UTC, January 20. Art LaPella (talk) 07:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

If someone remembers, this can be amended in real time on the day...  — Amakuru (talk) 07:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

OK. Art LaPella (talk) 07:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Friday's FL

Monday's FL

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Today's POTD

Tomorrow's POTD

General discussion

Age of Empires

Putting an entry about computer-game on the main page demeans the standing of this encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again. JACOPLANE • 2008-06-19 19:48

Read systemic bias then stop complaining. Computer and video games (note no hyphen) do not demean anything, least of all this encyclopedia. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 20:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It could be said that complaining about the recognition of a well written comprehensively encyclopaedic article belies your lack of effort in improving articles of a non video game-esque nature. 86.139.50.57 (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to support the view that video games shouldn't be on the main page but we don't have to bite the newcomer's head off either. Tourskin (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

But newbies are delicious... Raul654 (talk) 06:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

What newbie? 80.189.103.145 has been around since September 2007! --199.71.174.100 (talk) 07:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You can't tell for sure. IP addresses can be shared, or might change. The person who wrote the message above might not be the same as the person who edited in September. Puchiko (Talk-email) 11:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Right. Don't assume anons to be anybody. (S)he may be a rogue admin, which is not likely to be delicious. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Should've went with the no pictures argument. It would've trolled better.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 01:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully concerns like this don't go into picking the articles to hit the front page. Mac Davis (talk) 01:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Main page?

What is main about this page? Should it not be called the Front page or Cover page instead?--ProperFraction (talk) 00:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if "Front" and "Cover" are any better. The page is not in front of nor covering anything, besides what's inside your monitor. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

A load of electronic bits I think!--ProperFraction (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Front page would cause a lot of disambiguation issues with Frontpage, and wiki is not paper. ffm 19:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe "First Page"? --Howard the Duck 09:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't there some talk of moving it out of the WP:main namespace entirely? I can't find it under perenniel proposals. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Its never really been put forward as a serious proposal, but there has been many, many, short discussions on the topic, the three major ones that occured are in archives 87, 89 and 90.

All this is easily found in the information box at the top of the page btw :) ☯Ferdia O'Brien /_(C) 14:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)  :)

Judy Garland

The years in the blurb should be formatted "(1922–1969)" without spaces, and without linksper WP:MOSDATE. indopug (talk) 01:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. --- RockMFR 01:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

For that matter, I cannot remember the last time that an individual's years of birth and death were included on the main page. Should these be included? It doesn't matter eitherway, I'm just curious as to why we have chosen to do it this time. Bobo. 01:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe they were added in response to this. Nufy8 (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, thank you very much for directing me to that link, Nufy8. So is this the "done thing" from now on, birthyear (and deathyear if appropriate) included in a main page featured article biography? It would be good to have consistency eitherway, though I have no opinion as to which would be better. Bobo. 01:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Raul (the FA Director) will probably be including DOB and DOD in all future biography blurbs. Nufy8 (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

We had a recent discussion, and it seems Raul has agreed that the dates are a valuable addition Modest Genius 17:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC at TFA/R

See Misplaced Pages talk:Today's featured article/requests#Facilitating TFA suggestions, request to unprotect the TFA blurbs and let the community choose them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There is also an alternative proposal to keep the blurbs protected, but to open TFA requests to the community in a more structured way... as overseen by a TFA director. Wrad (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ice on Mars presentation in front page

That's not strictly Main Page material but it is related to its presentation. First, it strikes me that it's slightly hard to find which is the main article of the sentence. Is it Mars or is it Phoenix. Since I've been using wikipedia for some time, it's obviously not Mars, that'd be an article on it. Perhaps it needs to be somehow more prominently shown. Secondly, shouldn't the main article about it be about a mission finding ice on Mars? It's an article about a craft. --Leladax (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

For ITN, the link in boldface should be the "main" article. That's the "updated" wikipage, per ITN rules. If the bolded link doesn't lead to an article with details of the story highlighted on ITN, please consider posting a complaint at WP:ITN/C or Template talk:In the news. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Note

Hi, I meant to do this earlier, but was caught up with dealing with a load of other things. Anyway, I semi-protected this talk page due a sockpuppetry attack that spilled over from another article. This note is to inform people of that protection, and that since the protection is set to indefinite, any admin may choose to set the protection back to move=sysop after a few hours if they wish, though I do plan to lift my own protection of the page later anyway. Thanks. Acalamari 22:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Main Page